brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Set Reviews on Brickipedia
Hi everyone, I was wondering about having set reviews on Brickipedia. (There might already be something about this, if there is could you please direct me there.) What do other people think? 08:38, April 24, 2010 (UTC) :Hmmmm. No, we haven't got set reviews here yet, only maybe some opinions. But is this suitable for a wikia? We are an encyclopedia, after all... 10:46, April 24, 2010 (UTC) ::I think that was partly the idea of the Article comments.. I have an extension idea in mind, but I fail at PHP, and its a mix of 2 wikia extensions. --Lcawte 15:34, April 24, 2010 (UTC) I'd really like that to happen, like /Review 01:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :We could set up a namespace for it, and have a Review link at the top of every page, between the Article and Discussion tabs. 02:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::That sounds nice! (but we need a policy or something then like the Forum:User Blog Policy? so that nobody creates a review like "This set is soooo cool!") 10:27, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::: I like this idea , It may be an invitation for some childish reviews and opinions, so as Samdo has pointed out above a stringent policy would be needed in my opinion. Gladiatoring 10:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::: I'm a big fan of the idea too, however how would it be set up? We'd have multiple reviews of the same set, so you can't really just have Set name/Review. Eurobricks do some great reviews which are all set out well and have good spelling and grammar, maybe we could look into how they do theirs and try to have something fairly similar in terms of the required standard for the reviews to be kept? 12:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::How about setting up an "add review" button (like the "leave a message" button), which gives some standarts like title, maybe rating ect. The button automaticly adds a poll via to vote on if the review was good or bad, just like at Eurobricks. 15:14, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Is it possible to add the review link only to Set articles? I don't want to have a review on pages like 1995... :/ 16:17, July 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: I had an idea in mind a while back of expanding Brickipedia and using a kinda on-page tab system a bit like, and have reviews, and inventories and whatever.. but meh.. if we do go with reviews, we'll need new policies and alteast another admin.. we seem to be losing them (yes, I am well aware that Ajr is away at the moment, and no, this isn't me going hm... I see a chance to get myself admin.) --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 21:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Actually, I could set up what you guys are talking about, although it would require me to enable Semantic MediaWiki (I'll get more into that later). Also, no, we don't really need another admin... Now if article comments are enabled again, that is a different story. 21:49, July 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::You said the S word.. we must destroy him, before the MW devs do :P We could of needed another admin, but then you came back :P --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 22:22, July 26, 2010 (UTC) :I'm still not back yet ;) 22:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC) ::What's the S word? Sematic? 22:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC) :::(s)Comments? :P 22:40, July 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Wait a minute. When we can set up a tab for reviews, we can also set a tab up for inventories. That would mean no pages like XXXX Set name/Parts, we could put everything into that inventory. 10:16, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::You mean just like it says by ARTICLE and TALK ? If we work that out it could be efficient. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 10:25, July 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, like those two. By the way, Brickset is using that technique too. :D 10:31, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::There is a limit of three custom namespaces however, so we'd need to choose them carefully. More information here. 10:39, July 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Great keep the inventories at the end and when wikia allows a fourth than we can at set reviews. Just think about all the "Thiss et is awesome!!!!!!!" (Literally spelled) or "This set is worst LEGO made" that will come up if we added it instead. Anybody wanna make a voting table? [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 10:46, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Can we transform three custom namespaces and three related talk pages into six custom namespaces without talks? 10:46, July 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::No, we can't cash in the discussion spaces for actual namespaces. I agree that we should get an inventory namespace thing before this. 13:00, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::::Which ones do we have already? I know we have "Magazine", but what else? 20:04, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :Jag got the S word.. its deeply hated by a bunch of MediaWiki Developers. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 21:27, July 27, 2010 (UTC) With policies we should have that the page has to have a discussion to be deleted unless it is clearly spam or short and simply saying that you like/hate it. 22:42, July 27, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think reviews should be on article/discussion pages, but I think plenty of people do it with the blog. I would just stick with that. -Nerfblasterpro: [[special:contributions/Nerfblasterpro|'Can you believe it's only been a year?']] 15:11, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :Since we now decided to have inventories, we need to add that to the MoS too. I have started such a section at Forum:MoS proposals. 16:11, July 28, 2010 (UTC) Sub-proposal OK, so I think that everyone wants to have an inventory page for each set. We can request that a namespace be enabled, and have an extra tab on each content page labelled "Inventory". Now, I think that we should keep one namespace open for another future project (we are currently using one out of the three available to us). So, what if we enabled article comments instead of a reviews page? There are two extensions that we can have enabled, which will help prevent bad comments and remove bad ones faster. Special:AbuseFilter and Special:Nuke, respectively. The former is not currently available, however, when it is, why don't we give it a try? We can do another week long test, to make sure that it will work. Please comment, and ask questions. 01:35, July 28, 2010 (UTC) * Well, everyone knows what I think about comments, but I'm not going to ramble on about that here, I'll just say what I think about it being used for reviews. I really don't think that it will work in the sense that one user can put in a really lengthy, well done review using proper spelling/grammar, and be surrounded by short random comments along the lines of "i liek dis set". However, I can see what you're getting at with the way to create the review, and having it as a separate style to the articles themselves. How about actually giving a point to user blogs, and having reviews there, and the comments section below can be for speficially commenting on the review? Just a thought, don't know if that would work well either. 02:21, July 28, 2010 (UTC) ::Huh NHL? I don't understand you. 03:17, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :::Article comments have the added bonus of over doubling the activity on a wiki. On a wiki like Brickipedia with a specific topic, that isn't a bad thing. I know that they make articles look a bit less professional, and have increased vandalism, but it is well worth it in my mind. 22:24, July 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::Article comments, in my opinion should stay off for the time being, atleast until the rewrite has been finished (yes, if anyone is paying attention to #wikia-dev on IRC).. so we can see if there is anything new. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 22:26, July 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::That's a good point. I have heard that Wikia was planning to modify the comments extension, and we should wait until that has been done. 23:56, July 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I may have missed something (the bulk of my wiki experience has been outside of Wikia), but rather than using a namespace for comments, why not use the talk page for the article? If you want to keep it so that the talk pages discuss what to do with the article, it's still just a case of either dividing discussion under headers for "Comments" and "Discssion", or creating a sub-page of the talk page for whatever is deemed the less important of the two uses. (For instance, Talk:Boba Fett could be for discussion of the article's maintenance, etc, while Talk:Boba Fett/Comments could be linked to on Talk:Boba Fett, and used just for idle comments about Boba Fett or Boba Fett Lego or whatever else. They'd only need to be created as necessary, not set up for every talk page right away. [[User:Sonny Burnett|'Sonny Burnett']] [[User talk:Sonny Burnett|'Talk']] 00:01, July 29, 2010 (UTC) :Article comments are just like blog comments, but for the article. Basically, you comment on the topic of the article. Talk pages still exist. 01:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC) ::So at the moment, the possible options are: have no set reviews, have set reviews on a subpage of the talk page, have comment reviews, have blog reviews, and have a new namespace for reviews. Anything else? 02:22, July 29, 2010 (UTC) ::: Its time to review all the proposed reviews. Gladiatoring 02:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::You mean it's time to review all the proposed reviews for set reviews? haha good one 02:29, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Let's not use comments. I really think reviews would be great. 00:12, August 2, 2010 (UTC) :The Inventory: namespace has been enabled. I'll have the tabs up and running as soon as possible. 00:57, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::Good to see it up and running :) Would it be ok if we modify template:set to contain a link to an inventory page of the same name? Insertion of pieceount will be the same, it'll just mean that there will be a lot of redlinks in the "pieces" field for a while. Example of the link (not the code- that will just be a number still) here. Also, since this forum was actually about reviews, should we do something about reviews too? 03:18, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::I'd like to try it with article comments, but that won't be for another couple of weeks. We could set up the same thing with reviews, though, but article comments would be more successful in terms of increased activity. 03:24, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::@ NHL: I think it's easier to have an additional tab next to the Article and Discussion tab, since it can be found faster. 11:40, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::So do I really, but I didn't know that was possible. 12:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::Does anybody mind if I use it for the first couple days just to get used to it? Not to be rude but I would like to do this by myself for a while, maybe with a partner but not somebody who does this in their sleep. Unlike most of you I don't have a current project and I will do great with it. Thanks, [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 13:14, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Ummm, I don't think you can WIP a whole namespace :S But, I think we should really have a clear MOS established for inventories before anyone goes off mass-creating them anyway, otherwise we'd just have to change them all later. 13:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Isn't it possible to block the Inventory namespace until the Manual of Style is chosen? 13:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :No it isn't, let's just chose an MoS quickly :S 14:59, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I should also mention that I am still working on getting the new tabs working properly, however, there is no possible way to have them only appear on articles using the set template. Sorry. For all of the other ones, we'll just need to redirect the inventory pages to some project page that says that page can't have an inventory page. I'll make that now. 15:01, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::Also, let's have both the inventory tab, and a link on every set template. Even more exposure that way. 15:06, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::We need more opinions at the MoS proposals for a quick decision... :/ And personally, I don't really like too many colored links in the Template set, how about make a small tab under the normal template:set with a link to the inventory? 15:15, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::Okay... This was originally about reviews, why can't we just do the same thing with the reviews that we did with the inventory? 19:35, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Yeah. 14:18, August 7, 2010 (UTC) : I think the problem is that there can be mutliple reviews for one set, unlike in the inventory where it's a 1-1 relationship. 07:01, August 8, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, so we could do it like this. 07:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC) Yeah! 12:26, August 9, 2010 (UTC) :Hey, we need to decide something about this. 04:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)